Pigeonhole

Welcome to the blog of the New Zealand Post Primary Teachers' Association / Te Wehengarua (PPTA), .... A blog that's not afraid to ruffle some feathers.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are the personal opinions of the bloggers and commenters and may not necessarily reflect the position of PPTA .
For advice relating to your employment relationship or professional role PPTA members should always contact their local field office.
All comments are moderated before publication.
Email us to contribute a blog or an idea for a blog.

Before the July term break I had the privilege of attending Te Ara Whakamana; a conference forum on multiple pathways and transitions i.e. about the secondary-tertiary transition and the transition to employment. The conference is jointly hosted by Ako Aotearoa and the Centre for Studies in Multiple Pathways at the Manukau Institute of Technology (MIT).

One workshop - Internships: New pathways to employment - had some disturbing aspects. The workshop was about the MIT internship 'opportunity'.

This is the spiel in the conference programme:

Auckland Airport, Manukau Institute of Technology (MIT), and retailers based within the international terminal have collaborated since 2012 to develop and implement a partnered internship programme that fits with the simple objective of local jobs for local talent.

While simple in its goal, the programme is detailed in its preparation to enable prospective interns to go through a series of interview and multiple job opportunities. While unpacking the internship programme, this presentation will offer practical examples of modelling an internships pathway from classroom to workplace.

Sounds great doesn’t it?

The course is pitched at local Pasifika and Māori students, some of whom access this programme via the Youth Guarantee fees free scheme (called a scholarship by many tertiary providers including MIT).

The employers work with MIT to identify the requirements that they believe important for the students to meet.

MIT carries out a pre-recruitment phase that includes identifying suitable students - i.e. those that meet the employer requirements. These students are rewarded by being selected to attend an employment ‘expo’ at the airport where they meet potential employers and the employers meet them.

Not on the slide above is this little gem:

Students are well prepared in not asking 'those' questions "how much do I get paid? When are my holidays?" internship opportunity

Some of us care about education being part of 'the good life' others, perhaps unthinkingly - given that in some contexts a job (any job?) is a privilege when times are tight - are preparing students for being malleable biddable servants in the great work machine.

Thinking about the students told not to ask potential employers "those" questions. Workers/students have rights. pic.twitter.com/V0j3W9Za8Y

This isn't supposed to be how it works. The promise was that the out of whack funding that charter schools get would come down as they became established and the rolls grew towards their maximum.

But the average per student funding in the first five charter schools has increased from last year, thanks to the Ministry’s generous (extravagant?) recalculations of their guaranteed minimum rolls, while growth has been slow or even negative.

The biggest boost, unsurprisingly has gone to the deeply troubled Whangaruru charter school, which thanks to its declining roll and the extra boost of $129,000 they're getting - has more than doubled it's per student funding from 2014.

Rise Up, which last year was the cheapest charter school to run, has received a boost of around $3000 per student – maybe they saw how much the other schools were getting and convinced the Ministry to double the number of students they are funded for (while the number of students actually enrolled increased at a much more modest rate).

Two charter schools, which have had growing rolls, those run by Villa and ATC, have slightly less per student in 2015 than 2014, around $1000 each, but both of them are still funded at a level far above the public school average of $7055 per student.

As charter school defenders are keen to point out, establishing new schools is always expensive and small schools are much more costly to run that large ones. Both of these things are true, but we were assured that the funding would get more in line with what most students receive as time went on, not less so.

The most recent capital injection into the Whangaruru Charter School of $129,000 to cover “extra costs associated with implementing its remedial plan” along with the quarterly funding of $412,148 and including the cost of two audits by Deloittes of $150,000 puts the total cost of per student at $49,425. (That’s not including the enormous cost of paying Wellington consultants to now run the school which will be hidden in Vote Education.)

Full board and tuition at Kings College is $37,647, the 21 day Outward Bound Course is $4010 leaving $5000 for weekly sessions with a psychologist and …there would still be money left for the kids to travel home.

Or they could spend the money in the local community but sensibly. Whangaruru is not a school - it is barely a single class. The number on the roll might be 39 but we hear it’s more like 25. It should be turned into a fully-equipped e-classroom operated as a satellite of one of the local co-ed schools.

It must be Collective Bargaining time. The “teachers are lazy” chorus is being chirruped in the media. Its latest iteration arose from a speech made by a 15 year old objecting to worksheets. We probably shouldn’t blame her- when I was 15 I thought I knew everything too.

Within a week Pebbles Hooper learned that having an opinion doesn't guarantee it’s worth airing; her chickens came home to roost. Perhaps an adolescent lack of awareness -that calling teachers ‘lazy’ might be offensive- is more forgivable.

Sadly, any fledgling hopes she might learn there are consequences for lacking respect (and evidence) fell flat. Like birds of prey, journalists flocked to gather anecdotes about ‘lazy teachers’ instead.

Of course, the rational know that the plural of anecdote is not data. The data shows that NZ teachers help kiwis fly. They consistently perform in the top tier internationally, while PISA survey data shows that NZ teachers are ranked -by students- among the highest in the OECD. Such data reflects NZ teachers generally.

Despite this, NZ teachers are paid poorly in comparison to other high performing nations. They are currently seeking to catch up a little- no wonder the speech got airtime.

... the funding change would also affect all year 12 students in the schools involved as it would shrink subject choice in academic courses.

"In this latest situation, the ministry has only been able to increase student numbers [in academies] by taking funding from elsewhere in the system," Fox said.

...

However, the ministry's modelling showed 43 schools would lose between one and one and a half days staffing a week.

A further 10 schools would lose between two and four half-days staffing."

The loss of a teaching position, generally means the loss of a subject from the school timetable. That leaves schools unable to provide a broad curriculum for the students who chose to stay in school - and at the moment that is still the majority.

And it’s not just curriculum either – every teacher lost also means a reduction in the number of teachers available to coach sports, run clubs and cultural events, direct plays, organise the choir and to provide pastoral care. The teachers will get jobs at other schools; the students stay in the school but have reduced opportunities.

Giving students a chance at trades is a good idea but the ministry is funding it by disadvantaging another group of students.

The design of this system - with 'at risk' funding - also creates a workforce of teachers in ‘precarious’ employment, in fixed term and part-time teaching work. An employment situation that does not value teachers or encourage loyalty.

It is worth noting that secondary schools have been teaching trades related education and courses for decades - not just since 2011 which is probably more about the latest government / ministry branding game. A game that relabels (smothers with jargon) the continued under-funding and under-resourcing of teaching and learning in our schools.

On the back of a busy Term 2 it was great to see so many of our members turn out for PPTA’s 21st Māori Teachers' Conference in Rotorua last week.

The hui is a chance for Māori and non-Māori teachers alike to reconnect with kaupapa Māori in a union context – to find inspiration in the knowledge and experience shared by guest speakers and ask questions about all aspects of our mahi in a safe and compassionate environment.

This year many attendees expressed how heartening it was to hear from everyday people dedicated to improving communities so often neglected by government authorities – people who have made positive steps to curb violence, extend healthcare, defy notions of “limitation” and lead with the idea of Māori succeeding as Māori.

All of this makes a lasting impression on our young people. As our rangatahi panel told us – they are a generation hungry for role models.

Several of this year’s workshops allowed attendees to explore the kaupapa behind PPTA’s collective agreement claims (currently being negotiated with the Ministry of Education) in greater detail. Attendees said they found an examination of the increasing workload of Māori teachers in the last 20 years particularly insightful.

This hui left me with the impression that our many kaiako are working harder and harder in situations and circumstances that are becoming more difficult and thankless. But we recognise the value of your effort and dedication. Our rangatahi show us they recognise and value it too.

PPTA / Te Wehengarua remains, as always, committed to seeing that it is rewarded.

Te Makao Bowkett,

Āpiha Māori

Rotorua Girls High School students with Ally Gibbons and Aramoana Mohi-Maxwell

Thank-you for your invitation to talk in your letter of 1 July 2015. I have seen myself as a teacher since I was 18 years of age (now coming up 39 years ago) and entering university on a Division U programme. The profession has been good to me, there have been many exciting and challenging opportunities here in New Zealand and overseas. The children I have shared my own learning with have taught me much. It is such a precious privilege that their parents, caregivers and they themselves allow me to work with them exploring our world together. What a treat that there is so much more to still explore. To do so with young minds, with fresh challenges, with colleagues is invigorating and also keeps me young in thought and often quite humbled by what I gain as others share with me. Your letter acknowledges that "some" are "unsure of this new council". That seems an understatement. It is wonderful to see the diversity and experience of the council members but that does nothing to reassure me that I am in any way represented by the new council. It is my view that the profession has been explicitly clear that your council cannot be seen as independent when we as registered teachers have no say in council membership. The submissions to select committee and our union voices have been ignored by government and the Minister who appointed you all to the new council. The principle "no taxation without representation" dates back 800 years to Magna Carta and also to Irish and American grievances that led to conflict in those nations. Unless this principle is to be part of the new council's voice I have little confidence in your ability to lead our profession. Unless this issue is addressed you do not have my personal permission to represent me as a member of the teaching profession. I am reassured when you state your agenda will be progressed through working with me. I look forward to one of the key aspects of that agenda being strong representation to Minister Parata and others that the profession wishes to be involved in choosing the members of your council not just being paying serfs under your direction. That I see as the very first issue in elevating the status of our profession and a solution to the uncertainty so many of us feel about the new council. Ngaa mihi

So it has started. A puff piece from the “Education Council” in the “education in crisis” mode. Apparently some schools are “doing well” with digital technologies and others are “lagging far behind.” Of course they are. Would we be right in assuming that the impetus for this story came from Council member Claire Amos, highlighted in the video, whose previous experience was in wealthy schools and is now in one that has been purpose designed for ICT? A teacher who has no idea what it’s like trying to work in a school that doesn’t even have UFB far less up-to- the–minute software and hardware?

On cue, the organisation that is supposed to be about teachers lets the government off the hook for the digital divide and ends up blaming schools and teachers for unpreparedness around ICT. Watch the video and see what happens next - an ad for a post-grad course which just happens to cost around $3000. Now we all know, you can’t control the way media cut and connect stories, but that is why most organisations don’t allow individuals to blat off in the media without a solid policy platform.

Some questions for the council:

1Does it really believe that the digital divide in schools is the fault of schools and teachers?

2Does it advocate the solution as upskilling at personal or school cost via private providers?

3Does the council already have policy on these matters or is it open to council members to make it up as they go along?

A member has copied us into his response to the letter received today from Julian Moore, the interim CEO of the Education Council.

Mr Moore,

Please be aware that we are deeply suspicious of the on-going government changes that have gone on since the TRB and that I am typical of teachers who have little faith in this quango.

The key issue is the lack of democratic representation and, since the legislation does not allow to remedy this, you must accept that the profession will perceive your organisation as just another government attempt to control teachers rather than an institution which has true engagement and support.

So following on from puffer jackets a few weeks ago, the big education story of the moment is a student who may or may not have been stood down for posting a speech critical of her teachers on Facebook.

Despite the ethics of turning a 15 year old’s Facebook post into a news story without comment from the people on the other side of the issue, it’s out now, so let’s canvas some of the facts.

1. The speech doesn’t name anyone and while it’s harsh in its judgements of some teachers, isn’t any more challenging or offensive than many other things teachers will have heard.

2. The school hasn’t confirmed that the student has been stood down – in fact there is some uncertainty about this.

3. The media now are saying she was stood down ‘after making a speech’ rather than because of the speech – so if she was stood down, it could have been for a range of things.

4. It would be highly unusual for a student to be stood down for making a speech like this or posting it on Facebook. And it would also be highly unusual for a school to have to respond publicly about an individual student being stood down – but in this era of parents being quick to run to lawyers or media, maybe it’s something schools should be prepared for.

So, the facts are pretty uncertain.

But what about the wider issues?

It's definitley important to acknowledge that the experience she’s talking about at school, of being unhappy and not feeling engaged by her teachers is real. It’s an unfortunate, but perhaps unavoidable corollary of the law that makes school compulsory. If we thought that school was going to be inherently and always engaging and fun and its value would be self-evident, then we wouldn’t compel people to attend.

I guess the reason though that editors have decided that this is a ‘big’ story is the idea that it’s reflective of a wider malady – that her experience is one that is symptomatic of something bigger. There’s a clear narrative here, that shown by the quotes selected from her speech – that teachers are lazy, that they don’t care about the students, that students are unhappy and ground down by teachers.

There are always people willing to promote this narrative – partly encouraged by people within the education sector who (maybe rightly) take the view that we need to be self-critical in order to improve and change. That’s fair enough.

More importantly perhaps, is this actually symptomatic of something broader?

The evidence would suggest not.

Are schools kicking students out willy-nilly for minor infractions? It doesn’t seem so - data the Ministry put out just the day before confirms this. The numbers for stand-downs, suspensions and exclusions are the lowest since records have been kept.

And what do students think about school? The Youth 2000 series, which surveys around 9000 high school students shows a steady increase in their sense of satisfaction with school between 2001 and 2012. Students who report liking school a lot, a bit or thinking it is okay have increased from 85.5% in 2001, to 87.8% in 2007 and to 90.2% in 2012. This isn’t perfect by any means, but it’s a trajectory that is going the right direction.

What’s more, the proportion of students who think that their teachers treat them fairly has also improved steadily, from 42% in 2001 to 51.7% in 2012, and it’s a similar story of steady but gradual improvement with students reporting that their teachers care about them a lot.

Another major survey gave students at New Zealand secondary schools five statements to agree or disagree with about their views on student teacher relationships. With all five of these statements, things like “I get along well with most of my teachers” or ‘If I need help, I will receive it from my teachers” around three quarters of students agreed. And it’s worth noting that the rates were higher in New Zealand than the OECD average, and higher than in Australia, where, the student who sparked this whole thing is heading off to live it appears. I hope she has a better time at school there!

Villa Education Trust, which runs two charter schools and a private school, recently appointed a new board member, and he's someone who should fit in perfectly.

Cameron Astill was chair of the board of Pigeon Mountain primary school when the Ministry of Education decided it was going to convert an old special ed school next door into a school for children in CYFS care, creating the new Thurston Place College. The saga of Thurston Place is one of the uglier episodes of NIMBYism we've seen in recent years and Astill was at the centre of it. His howls of complaint at the time make quite a contrast to the deep concern for educationally disadvantaged kids that charter school advocates like him claim to have.

Astill not only revved up the community about the 'risks' that the children in CYFS care presented, setting up a website and huffing and puffing to local media, but took the Ministry to task for 'lack of consultation' with the local community about setting up the new school.

National MPs and conservative city councillors leapt on board, and Thurston Place College was canned.

And now Mr Astill is helping to run charters, established not only without consultation, but completely against the wishes of local schools.

But it's all okay - Mr Astill "is also passionate about making sure that children succeed to their full potential in education", according to hi bio from the Villa Education Trust. Just as long as they're not 'risky' kids in CYFS care.

Once again Northland branches have shown the rest of us what staunch means.

Massey University, knowing full well that that PPTA members have democratically determined that they will not put their professional and intellectual capital in the service of secretive, profiteering and politically-motivated charter schools, enrolled a student teacher from a charter school in their teacher education course. No problem there – the problems come when they try to pressure local secondary schools to take this student teacher on. Local teachers have seen at first-hand, the disruption and corruption and division that charter schools bring to school communities.

There are other options – private schools and other charter schools. Why isn’t the student being stationed at Terenga Paraoa’s sister charter school in Whangaruru?

And as for the Ministry of Education – what wallies! Deputy Secretary, Dr. Graham Stoop, thunders self-righteously about how out of order it is for PPTA members to refuse to provide support and succour for his flagship project, charter schools. Meanwhile up and down the country, teacher education providers struggle to find placements for teacher education students because secondary teachers are so busy we can't always take them. Deputy-Secretary Stoop has nothing to say about this issue (he could, for example, table a clause in our STCA bargaining to increase the associate teacher rate) but hops to when a student placement problem arises in a charter school.

The ministry appears to have been very hands-off when it comes to providing support for the beleaguered public schools in Whangarei which, I understand, are not only suffering roll drops and job losses as the result of having two school plonked into the city but are also picking up students from the charter schools, minus the funding.

Of course, it’s almost certain that Stoop is responding to pressure from the MP for the electorate of Gerrymander, one David Seymour. (Remember when public servants were just that and not part of political PR machine?) David Seymour, frothing at the mouth and fulminating, has described PPTA as disgraceful.

Well!! Being called names by a man who slithered into parliament on the back of a grubby deal in Epsom, immediately engaged in a sleight of hand to have himself declared leader of the Act Party to double his income and then engineered a position for himself that’s all status and no responsibility (under-secretary indeed!) is almost a badge of honour.

I'd say it'll be a cold day in hell should PPTA take advice on ethics from the Act Party’s parliamentary puppet.

As Confucius said on the topic of moral leadership – being loved isn’t enough; “When the good like you and the bad hate you, that is enough.”

PPTA teachers have voted not to support charter schools – their staff and their operation – it was well publicised at the time and the PPTA discussion is available on our website.

Our opposition to charter schools is evidence-based and well documented. Countries that have gone down the charter schools route, including Chile and Sweden, are seeing inequality increase and results declining. PPTA members have chosen not to divert resources from state schools or their students in order to prop up a model that threatens to weaken our public education system. It might well be that given the funding advantages and smaller class sizes in charter schools, we will see pockets of success in New Zealand - but the costs to the rest of the system, and the students served by it, remain too high.

So the hopeful travelers who have been given free tickets on the Hindenburg are now boarding excitedly.

According to the Minister of Education they will be “trailblazers” which promises a lot of excitement for all of us.

She also says that they are among New Zealand’s foremost practitioners and education experts. That would be except for the Australian, Tony Mackay. Is it really the case that we are so short of teaching expertise in New Zealand that we have to pick up an international jet-setting consultant to show us the error of our ways? Especially since he comes from a country that has a shameful record for running down public education. Look at this from an Australian blog dedicated to fighting for greater equity for public schools:

New figures show that private schools were massively favoured over public schools by government funding increases between 2008-09 and 2012-13. Funding for private schools, adjusted for inflation, increased by a staggering eight times more than for public schools. Save our schools

You won’t catch Tony Mackay compromising his OECD contracts by fighting an injustice like this.

Another intriguing appointment to Educanz is Helen Timperley from the University of Auckland and latterly a member of the Professional Learning and Development Review group which was supposed to clean up the mess that resulted from contracting out of professional development. The report has been languishing on the Minster’s desk (probably because it proposed a system that had schools and teachers more involved with the management of PLD). Given that the initial ministry papers on Educanz suggested dropping the PLD spend into Educanz, one doesn’t have to be clairvoyant to see where this is going. Teachers resent paying fees to Educanz and Educanz needs a lot of money because it has acquired a set of extra tasks around professional leadership that should be funded from the public purse and not from teachers’ pockets. Give Educanz the $80,000,000 PLD budget to dish out amongst its consultant friends and solve two problems at once. The door for racketeering will be jammed wide open.

The other Council members (whether they realise or not) are just placeholders. They are there to give a veneer of educational credibility to an organisation that is firmly under the thumb of the minister.

Their puppet masters in government, the Ministry of Education, the Education Review Office and Treasury will pull the strings for more contracting out, more privatisation, more standards for teachers and performance pay and the council members will dance merrily.

A little known fact that may or may not be relevant: The Hindenburg was as big as the Titanic.

Something that Minister Parata has made a point of recently is how keen she is to raise the status of the teaching profession. From asking business audiences to ‘speak well of teachers’ to saying she wants teaching to be a top choice for graduates alongside medicine and law, she’s resisted opportunities to bag teachers (such as that provided by the recent NZ Initiative Report on maths) and stuck solidly to her line of ‘backing teachers to win’.

This is cause for some optimism in our bargaining for the secondary teachers’ collective agreement. The Minister is aware of the pay cut that secondary teachers have had over the last five years. She will know that as teacher pay gets closer to median pay rates (with other sectors’ earnings growing much faster than teachers’) that it becomes less and less desirable to become a teacher, or stay in teaching, particularly in subject areas like technology or science.

The Minister likes to be able to list things she’s doing to further her government’s policy objectives – and at the moment some of the ones to ‘raise the status’ of teaching look pretty weak.* I’m sure that she would love to be able to say, “This government values secondary teachers, and that’s why we’re ensuring that they don’t suffer a permanent pay cut as a result of the recession.”

Is this a sign?

The Minister may have to tough time to convince her Cabinet colleagues of this, but she can make a strong case that this government’s legacy in education can be a strengthened teaching profession, and this investment for the future is one that’s far more important than roads or fibre.

* Of course I’m aware that one of these, EDUCANZ, actually does the complete opposite. But the professed intention is to ‘raise the status’…

A bunch of charter schools put their ‘annual reports’ out yesterday, beautifully produced pieces of PR fluffery that would make any company seeking investors proud.*

In the Vanguard report there’s a page dedicated to busting ‘Vanguard Myths’. Trouble is – most of them are nonsense.

Vanguard chooses to teach (some of) the NZC, but charter schools in general don’t have to. Section 158D of the Education Act makes clear that the contracts of charter schools will establish the curriculum and qualifications that they offer –they don’t have to be the NZC or NCEA.

The curriculum options at Vanguard are much narrower than almost any other schools teaching senior students. Students in years 11 to 13 do three compulsory subjects and choose from seven others.

Compare this to other small low decile secondary schools such as:

·Queen Elizabeth College in Palmerston North – 21 options at level 3

·Ruapehu College – 16 options at level 3

·Whangaroa College – 15 options at level 3

This is not counting the subjects available at other levels. And contrast this to some other secondary schools on the Shore – Birkenhead has 30 options at level 3, Northcote 40, or Glenfield 33.

Because Vanguard chooses to offer this very narrow range of subjects they can put far more resources into them.

So despite what the first paragraph sentence says, they do have ‘unregistered’ staff – just read sentence two. Someone who is ‘unregistered’ does not have a teaching qualification; therefore they’re not a teacher. Having a qualification in another field means nothing, there are thousands of qualifications available out there, it’s no guarantee of anything.

The Vanguard contract states it clearly – in 2015 they have 10 registered teachers, and 4 non registered, i.e. people who are not teachers.

So the ‘myth’ is in fact true – “They can use non-registered teachers and that could be someone off the street.”

The Dominion Post story, by Jo Moir is not about teachers who are unregistered, but people who have not renewed their practising certificates. These teachers have for some reason or another not filled out the form to get their certificate updated (a three yearly process). They are not unregistered.

This myth is partly right and partly wrong. It’s right in that they don’t have a zone. They could, in limited situations, refuse a student who lives right next door.

They are supposed to take all comers though. But the trouble with this is twofold. This is not like a regular public school where students can just rock up on day one (or two or three…) of term and expect to be able to go to school. Public schools have to take all comers. Vanguard’s cohort self-selects to a large degree. There’s a reason there are no ORS or high needs students there.

The other side is what they do when students are there. Charters overseas are well documented at perfecting the art of moving students on who are going to damage their reported grades. The four exclusions in 2014 could well mask a higher number of students who were ‘counselled out’ in less obvious ways. This (unfortunately) happens sometimes in public schools too. All we have to explain the roll drop from the start of 2014 to the end (of around 30 students) is that Vanguard says these students achieved NCEA and left. We have to take their word on this.

Vanguard’s roll did decline significantly over the course of 2014. It was 104 in March; 93 in July and 79 in October.

While they say the reason for this decline is that students left to pursue military careers, we don’t know that for sure, and the school has a lot of good reasons to say it. Contrast it to the status of public schools – if students (of any year level) leave during the year they lose funding. Retaining students at school is one of the major goals that regular public schools are given. This doesn’t seem to apply to Vanguard – who are allowed to shed students and act as if this is a great accomplishment.

Vanguard’s funding in 2014 and 2015 is much higher than most schools, at nearly $20,000 per student. The average state school funding per student is around $7000 per student. One other charter school received over five times regular state school funding.

Some very small low decile secondary schools do receive per student funding that is comparable to what Vanguard gets. It’s worth noting a couple of things though. Because tiny secondary schools are hugely expensive it’s not really considered a good idea just to open them up willy nilly. The comparably expensive schools are generally in the wops, or have a historical significance and special character which explains their existence. What’s more, their funding is high because of the base funding which secondary schools get to offer a full and complete curriculum at senior level – it’s expensive to offer that wide range of subjects. Vanguard doesn’t do this, so they have heaps of cash for small classes – and hey presto – high grades which they can trumpet about in glossy brochures like this.

Yes, building new schools is expensive. But the state owns them, and the school property portfolio is worth around $10billion. Charter schools’ facilities are privately owned.

Yesterday’s press release from Minister Parata about the gazetting of EDUCANZ contained made up nonsense that is comically easy disprove.

The press release, “Trailblazing professional body a step closer” contains this nugget:

Ms Parata says the Education Council is the new professional and regulatory body for the teaching profession.

“It will work with the profession to champion new ideas and excellent teaching practice and provide inspirational education leadership in the same way as professional bodies in Australia, Great Britain and the United States do.

So, let’s have a look at these professional bodies in Australia, Great Britain and the US eh.

In Aussie each state has its own Teacher Registration Board (note the name, focused on core business, contains the forbidden word ‘teacher’). Most have have elected teacher members, and most of them also have union representation. None of them have the broad mandate for ‘professional leadership’ that EDUCANZ is saddled with. Their focus is on regulation of the profession, and that’s pretty much it.

In Great Britain there are the two extremes – from England where there is no registration body at all (it was scrapped in 2012) to Scotland, which has the most autonomous and well developed teachers’ council in the world, the GTC Scotland. The GTC Scotland does indeed ‘lead the profession’ in a broad and meaningful way – but its council’s make up is very different from EDUCANZ. It has 37 members, 17 of them teachers, 19 members are elected, and NONE are political appointees.

The US, like in everything, varies widely from state to state –but the most common type of teacher registration body is a state government controlled board that certifies teachers and that’s it. The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, which covers the whole of the US, is a very different beast – entirely voluntary and not connected to government at all, teachers can choose to seek certification from them if they want to, and pay their fees accordingly.

This basic lack of knowledge from the Minister’s office is worrying. Ten minutes on google is enough to show what rubbish this international comparison, used to give legitimacy to a ill considered and unwelcome new body, is.

It’s a pity that none of the government members on the Education and Science Select Committee considering the bill last year could be bothered to do that. But as we saw clearly, most of them couldn’t even be bothered paying attention to submitters, let alone doing their own independent research.

The latest accusation that we don’t care about the kids comes from none other than Alwyn Poole. He worked at St Cuthberts, a private school in Auckland with fees of $20,000 a year, then set up his own private school ($13,000 a year fees) before becoming the self-appointed cheer leader for charter schools.

His post on Kiwiblog has one reasonable point, about unfair access to special exam conditions, which has been well covered elsewhere.

His main point seems to be that no one (except for him and David Seymour presumably) cares about the achievement gap.

He only just seems to have noticed the main challenge that the education sector has been researching, looking for solutions for, and campaigning about for decades. What prompted this road to Damascus moment? Oh yeah, the chance to get taxpayer funding for his own private charter school chain.

If you’re interested in PPTA’s views on the achievement gap here are some links to a fraction of the advocacy, policy work and research that we have done on this issue over the three years. And don’t forget the thousands of PPTA members tirelessly giving their expertise, passion and commitment to the students in the schools that Poole writes off.

Oh and you might want to visit your local school - find out what they do, and how you can support your school community? It might be a whole lot more satisfying, and healthier, than an obsession belted out from a soapbox.

The pre-budget announcement of ‘new schools’ by the PM back in April was a flat affair, and now one of his Ministers is asking Parata exactly why one of the new schools is being built where it is.

Hastings-based Tukituki MP Craig Foss is asking urgent questions about a new school in his electorate, admitting he has been caught "on the hop" with the revelation that it is to be built on the site of the Arataki Motor Camp in Havelock North.

A minister outside Cabinet, Mr Foss said last night that he had been aware a new kura kaupapa, focused on teaching in Maori, was proposed for Hastings but learned of the actual location only by asking after he had heard of the possible site.

Foss doesn't sound super thrilled about this new school in his electorate (compare with David Bennett in Hamilton East) – though he is ‘aware’ it was being planned.

Why might this be?

After the April announcement I looked at the areas where the new schools would be, to get an idea if there is actually demand for new schools (which we know are very expensive) in those areas.

And Hastings also has 2 KKM, one with 57 students and the other with 118. Are new Kura really what these areas require?

(Latest roll figures, May this year, show both have gone up by a couple of students)

One of these schools is 5km from the site of the new one, the other is 10km away.

The Ministry of Ed has ‘government guidelines on roll size’ that state primary schools under 100 students and secondary under 300 are ‘marginal’. I’d suggest that for secondary 300 is actually too low – curriculum breadth seriously suffers in schools that size. But for some reason, here we will have 3 schools years 1-13 which all look unlikely to get to that minimum size.

And what does this mean for their students?

Well, Chris Whelan from the University Vice Chancellors told Radio NZ a few weeks ago that one of the theories about the drop off in Maori students achieving UE was because of small schools not offering a wide enough range of subjects.

Good on Foss asking about why they're getting a new school there, and what this will mean for students the electorate. I look forward to the answers.